The Schumer Standard


In 2001, Senator Charles Schumer (D, New York), wrote a controversial op-ed for the New York Times. In the op-ed, Judging by Ideology, Mr. Schumer laid out a case for being honest about the ideology of a judicial nominee.

For one reason or another, examining the ideologies of judicial nominees has become something of a Senate taboo. In part out of a fear of being labeled partisan, senators have driven legitimate consideration and discussion of ideology underground. The not-so-dirty little secret of the Senate is that we do consider ideology, but privately.

Unfortunately, the taboo has led senators who oppose a nominee for ideological reasons to justify their opposition by finding nonideological factors, like small financial improprieties from long ago. This ”gotcha” politics has warped the confirmation process and harmed the Senate’s reputation.

Among fellow senators, Mr. Schumer has been a lone figure in this regard.

In July 2005, shortly after John Roberts was nominated to replace Sandra Day O’Connor—and before William Rehnquist’s death changed the order of things—an article appeared in the New York Times which described a list “of about 80 questions for Mr. Roberts that seek to determine his views on issues of concern to a broad range of special interests: abortion rights advocates, gays and lesbians, women, environmentalists, disabled people, parents, educators, journalists, religious groups, labor unions, civil rights activists and on and on.” Almost no one—especially Republicans and conservatives—thought these questions were appropriate.

I have come to the conclusion that they are not only appropriate, but vital.

I propose calling this approach The Schumer Standard and I think Republicans on the Judiciary Committee should adhere to it with religious zeal. It probably won’t stop a judicial extremist from being confirmed for the Supreme Court, but it will serve to educate the American people that a) elections do have consequences and b) the consequence of electing a radical president and a rubber-stamp Congress is even more radicals on the Court.

Every passing year, I see Schumer’s wisdom on this issue more and more clearly.


One thought on “The Schumer Standard”

  1. i agreed and then shuttered. can i really handle hearing an honest answer to those questions from any political leader? the answers may shake our cages a bit – i’m almost afraid to even ask them.

    in the end, it would be nice to hear the truth on these issues from a potential judicial appointee. but you have to admit, it may result in the best stand up comedy routine in history when they actually tried to answer them while not really answering them at all

    just like i would like to ask our prez this question – ‘who is Lord of all?’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s